E M P I R I C A L O B S E RVAT I O N S
tried to adapt our products to those findings.’ The issue of project controls flickered in and out of our discussions. The participation of several actors with several undertakings and different priorities resulted in the risk of duties not being fulfilled. Methods like schedule control, reporting, performance indicators, and feedback occurred as measures under control. Control appeared to be a controversial matter. If wrongly implemented it would have been counteractive. To quote one interviewee: ‘You can exercise control by writing memos and blaming others, but it does not solve anything’. Properly and purposefully executed, however, control was a necessary ingredient. As one leader said: ‘We have warranty matters always on the agenda to ensure that we listen to feedback about our products. We use the input for making product modifications’. At the end of the project, the life of the undertaking departs from the status of a project. The project closing/integration and life after the project were reflected on the legacy organization—the organization that assumed responsibility after the project closed. One effect of new products was the cannibalization of other products within range. ‘We want to cannibalize on our own products’, one leader said, ‘because we know that we substitute the sales to a better product.’ New products replaced old ones. Another product–related issue was the spin–off projects and organizational consideration. To quote one leader interviewed, ‘The development in the electrical locks boosted sales to the extent that it was reasonable to make it an independent business unit’. In this case, the success caused reorganization. Another form of life after the project appeared in the form of pressure for product alterations. Product development was usually not finished when the project ended, which resulted in interview statements like: We have inspections during the process, in order to cut down on later reworking when the product has been handed over.’ As the life span of the project team was shorter than the product life cycle, further development was usually to a line organization, thereby reducing scrutiny of the development.
229